What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who denies the existence of God. Don’t take my word for it, Stanford et al. will tell you the exact same thing.1 Atheists assert that God does not exist. This is in contrast to the agnostic view, which holds that man cannot know whether God exists.

Of course, you are wondering why, in the presence of so many people who claim that God is a fiction, I am claiming that such people are a fiction. You are right to wonder, and I have two replies.

First Reply

Most such people conceive of “God” as the greatest force in the universe. To them, “God” is the greatest being. Said another way, the word-symbol “god” represents the concept of “the greatest being.” The problem, however, is that this claim—that there is no greatest being in the universe—is entirely compatible with theism. Christianity itself denies the existence of an all-powerful entity in the universe, because God is not “in the universe.” God is not of the universe. God is uncreated and non-contingent being. In fact, what is arguably the most precise and encompassing definition that we could give of God is that He is Being. In the words of the Old Testament: “I AM.” In the words of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, “Ipsum Esse Subsistens”—God’s essence is existence.

Thus, for one to accurately conceive of God as “the sheer act of ‘to be’” would render it impossible to deny His reality, by virtue of the plain incoherence of the statement. Denying the existence of existence is absurd, even to the dullest of us.

Second Reply

Regardless of whether the self-labeled “atheist” in question is denying the existence of God or of some pathetic distortion of God, he hath bitten off more than he can chew, for to deny the existence of God is to claim far greater knowledge of the universe than any man possesses. I need not mention the mere fact that the breadth of human knowledge of the oceans of earth is so pathetically small as to be compared to a drop in a bucket. How much more could—or, better yet, couldn’t—be said about our knowledge of the human brain, or our solar system, or our galaxy?

Yet despite this overwhelming and insurmountable gap in human knowledge, the “atheist” is prepared to assert the non-existence of something intangible. He knows that he has no grounds on which to deny the existence of water elsewhere in the universe, but he affirms that God is imaginary. We might be tempted to call this foolishness, but this is quite possibly the greatest example of delusion—a belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. (To be clear, the ‘evidence’ referred to is not evidence in favor of God’s existence; it is evidence that man is too ignorant to rationally assert God’s non-existence).

But let us assume, for a moment, that some individual actually does possess knowledge of the universe sufficient to maintain that God is unreal. Were this person real, his knowledge of the universe must be perfect, lacking in nothing. For if he lacked some knowledge, then that alone would compromise his certainty. But if this person existed who possessed perfect knowledge of the universe, would he not, in his perfection, be equivalent to the very idea of “God” that the atheist denies?

Where Did The Atheists Go?

Now, seeing as how the world is rid of all atheists, what are we to call those poor souls who once—hopefully not still—asserted to know that God does not exist? Provided they maintain their doubt as to the existence of God, properly-defined or not, such people would most fit into the camp of agnostics.

Now, agnostics believe “that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God…” (Oxford Dictionary)(emphasis mine). Incredibly, this position is as untenable as atheism!

Say Goodbye to the Agnostics

If I were to declare, “If extraterrestrials exist, nothing is known or can be known of their existence or nature,” I suspect that I would be ignored or vigorously refuted for such a brash claim. How, one must wonder, does a person come to know about the unknowability of a subject? Nevermind that the agnostic claims that nothing is presently known, which itself demands a perfect knowledge of the minds of seven billion people. The even greater problem is the claim that nothing can be known, for that is self-refuting.

To claim that nothing can be known of God is to claim knowledge of God; it is to assert that one knows that God would never reveal Himself to humanity. If one knows that God would never provide revelation, then that one already knows something of God, which is the very thing he is claiming is impossible. On what level does this even have the semblance of rational thought?

Where the atheist is caught in a delusion, the agnostic seems to be caught in ideological confusion. There is no escaping that reason takes a backseat to the truth for these sad souls. Their mindset is incredibly similar to those with mental illness. It is something to marvel that society finds so distressing the man with auditory hallucinations, but is so accepting of people who claim to know the unknowable.

Richard Dawkins titled one of his books “The God Delusion,” and I am tempted to believe that he was unintentionally prophetic. Modern day atheism and agnosticism are either delusions or ideologies. If delusions, they are rightly called ‘God delusions,’ for the one suffering from it has set himself in the place of God, believing that his knowledge is like unto God’s. If ideologies, then they are worshipping—that is, valuing—a proposition above the truth. They have deluded themselves into believing that a mere idea is more valuable than the invaluable truth. These ideologies are also rooted in a ‘God delusion.’

Is There Hope?

Perhaps I am wrong, though. Delusions are only delusions if the belief persists after it has been demonstrated to the subject that the belief is false. In this case, the false belief may very well be about the nature of truth. It ought not be dismissed that the first words spoken by the newly-appointed Pope Benedict XVI were about the “dictatorship of relativism.” If the Holy Spirit wanted, as I believe He did, Josef Ratzinger to be Bishop of Rome for only a brief time, then I am convinced that it was for us to hear and heed those words. It is often said that the greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world that he does not exist. Well, in our day, the more damaging trick was to convince the world that truth does not exist.

Some people object to Stanford’s definition. To the objectors, Stanford had this to say: http://jpst.it/rNNX. Those who lack belief in a supernatural reality are probably naturalist, irreligious, nonbeliever, or adiamorphic. ↩

The opinions expressed by the DPS blog authors and those providing comments are theirs alone; they are not
necessarily the expressions or beliefs of either the Dead Philosophers Society or Holy Apostles College & Seminary.

David Rummelhoff is a stay-at-home father, writer, & catechist. He holds an M.A. in Dogmatic Theology from Holy Apostles College & Seminary. A former evangelical protestant, he studied theology at Biola University before earning a B.S. in Urban Planning from the University of Cincinnati. David hails from Chicago but presently resides in Cincinnati with his wife, Emily, and their three daughters, Liv, Isla, & Celeste. Feel free to ask him a difficult question, or connect with him on Facebook or @Rummelhoff.

61 Comments

Truly amazing! You have slain all the atheists (and agnostics!) with a single semantic stab! Unfortunately, there is no one alive to appreciate it, because people don’t exist either!

“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

However, for all those imaginary people out there, including this imagined master of sophistry, “David”, I must ask this.

What do you call those of us who don’t know whether God exists or not, and so choose to withhold judgement on the matter until some more evidence becomes available?

Shall we be called atheists, agnostics, something else? Or do we not exist either?

You certainly know how to make sarcasm apparent in a text-only medium. Kudos. May I suggest, however, that brevity might be an area for advancement?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are smart enough to recognize that what I did was not the same as what Mr. Adams did. He did not use reason, he merely rounded down from 7 billion to 0. Personally, I wouldn’t even call that clever.

Anyhow, as to your pertinent remarks, I thank you.

There are a number of terms whose definitions fits the bill:
Materialist, Skeptic, Doubter, Godless, Faithless, Unbeliever, Irreligious, Nonbeliever, Adiamorphic

A couple of those, I admit, are often used perjoratively, but I don’t think that should matter–“atheist” is used perjoratively too. Some of them may seem to lack a certain specificity, but again, so does “atheist” in colloquial use. The academic and scholarly use is as I have presented above, but the variety of colloquial and incorrect usage today has given rise to numerous modifiers, such that you will find “weak atheists” and “strong atheists,” among others. Also, the fact that a word like “Unbeliever” is used in certain circles to denote anyone outside that circle hardly seems problematic either, given that people would be applying it to themselves.

All that said, I have actually ordered them in the manner that seems best to me, with the best terms toward the end. Adiamorphic is already in use, and has been for some time. It isn’t in vogue yet, but that’ll change.

I left the Catholic Church, but I never, in my heart of hearts, left my love for the Catholic Church. One reason for my enduring love is Catholic humor. Catholics generally know what to take seriously, and therefore they take their humor very seriously, like they take their charity.

Thank you for mostly keeping good humor and for always keeping your charity. Your response showed more kindness than I probably deserve. My comment was a bit cheeky, mostly because I thought your original article was a bit of a joke. A serious joke, of course.

You sadly don’t take humor quite seriously enough, because you missed Douglas Adams’s joke. I’d explain it, but that’s how jokes are spoiled. Also, you may miss the irony of criticising my comment for lacking brevity by using an even longer response. But I don’t.

Returning to the point, I see the direction you are going with your names. But you may have left out one that seems to better match the joke, and as a bonus is easier to say and remember than “Adiamorphic”: infidel. Yes, infidel, I think, would do well enough. It fits the spirit of the times.

Paul, we’re more on the same page than you might realize. I did think that your points were made a bit long, but I knew my response would be even longer. I tend to be thorough at the expense of brevity. I appreciate the comedic aspect to our discussion.

You know what, if I were adiamorphic, I would prefer ‘infidel,’ and I would wear the label with pride. It’s a bit like Christians in the Middle East proudly wearing the Nazarene label. Unfortunately, I think ‘infidel’ is too tied to Islam in the American mind.

Well, it’s a relevant term for some. Insofar as it goes, it’s acceptable. Similarly, I think ‘materialist’ is applicable to some self-labeled “atheists,” but not to others. If one is only attempting to express that they are not at all theistic, it seems to work. My only real contention is that ‘theism’ primarily refers to monotheism–atleast that’s my impression. But that’s probably me being too picky.

David, great post! I’ve always found hard logic the best tool in such discussions, because it leads back to God, and someone who hates God, needs to be illogical.

Paul, some would do better if instead of naming themselves some kind of -ist, they simply confessed that they are confused or in denial. Honesty and sanity go together.

Or, rather, I think that those who call themselves “Atheists” or “Agnostics”, really are saying that they hate or dismiss God, not that He does not exist or cannot be known. This supposition of mine, I infer from their manner of arguing, in which they use their brute will or emotion over reason, whenever a theist shows the fallacies of their line of thought.

Sadly, recent book sales, speaking events, and political groups make it very clear that it is more than a hobby for many people, even if they are a statistically small minority. But that small minority also indicates that the embrace of irreligiosity is not reserved to the wealthy, even if it may have first found popularity among them.

filologos101 August 13, 2014 at 10:33 am

Well, in the first place, it does not make me sad, and in the second, I never meant to imply that, by calling it a hobby, it was not pursued by many, only that (and this is why I noted that it is a First World problem) it cannot be pursued by the majority.

As for the second part of your response—and I worried that I might be misunderstood as saying what you seem to think I mean—I did not mean to say that only “the wealthy” could pursue this hobby, or at least not as you seem to have meant it, viz., that segment of your (our?) own society which is comparatively wealthy, but rather those societies for which survival is no longer the primary demand of daily energies.

If fact I consider this process to be active in each individual person as his circumstances vary from expending his energy primarily on survival to those circumstances in which boredom becomes possible, and then likely.

This is why I think, for a Christian, boredom must be considered a sin.
[I’m finished editing now. :)]

That there exists no God-in-the-universe is compatible with theism. Their incorrect conception of ‘God’ is just that–incorrect. So, their denial of a demigod is fine.

Bob August 13, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Now I get what you meant. I didn’t know what “this view” referred to. Fine article. God bless…

douglas kraeger August 16, 2014 at 6:43 am

David; You said in your article, “The problem, however, is that this claim—that there is no greatest being in the universe—is entirely compatible with theism. CHRISTIANITY ITSELF DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALL-POWERFUL ENTITY IN THE UNIVERSEChristianity itself denies the existence of an all-powerful entity in the universe, because God is not “in the universe.” God is not of the universe. God is uncreated and non-contingent being.” That God is not of the universe is different than “God is not in the universe”. I have trouble understanding an infinite God who is not somewhere. If God is not in the universe then How can He be truly infinite since there is something besides (outside of) him? Could the addition of the word “only” make the statement better and more accurate, so it would be,”God is not only in the universe”

HenryBowers August 13, 2014 at 12:12 pm

The first reply is clever, but does it carry us all the way to theism? For indeed, no one cogently denies being, but they might deny that essences are real, and so be pantheists. Therefore reason coaxes people out of atheism, but not into belief in a creator-god. Revelation is indispensable for that. Would you agree?

Nick, it wasn’t my intention to ‘carry’ us to theism. You are right in noting that my arguments do not bring anyone to necessarily believe in the God whose essence is His existence. I would also say that my arguments do not bring anyone to pantheism, though I see what you mean. Reason demonstrates that atheism is nonsensical. What happens next depends on the individual.

MarcusRegulus August 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm

That God “must” exist is a “given”. For the Universe to have reality, there has to be a ground of being to underlie it. (If this reasoning is not along the same lines as used to be proposed in physics for “ether”.)
For arriving at God as Being, Being Itself, Ground of Being, rationality alone will suffice. Even the Incarnation may be reasoned as God’s “intrusion” into His creation. To get, however, to “smells and bells”, requires a) a leap of faith, and b) someone, somewhere declaring, “God told ME to tell YOU.”
Pesky human monkey-minds wanting to ferret out the unfathomable (a mixed metaphor, for you) will not let this topic go. Hence, the proliferation of religions, sects, cults, denominations.
Maybe “reason” is not the way to go? Maybe asserted “revelation” is not enough? Maybe the combination of reason and revelation we call “dogma” is not enough?
It is all very well for those who revel in mindgames to build Castles In Spain, but we poor ignorant laypersons often fail to comprehend the highfallutin’ arguments of the philosophers (but “philosophy” used to be practiced for the layman).
It is built into the Human (following Augustine here) to want Something larger, much larger, than the Self. Those who profess the atheism and agnosticism you have demolished (how Marxian of you) yet have faith in something Higher — Science, Logic, Mankind, or Whatever (any Thing will do but God.)
My first awareness of your stuff. Carry On, Nurse!

Thanks for your thoughts, MR. One note though, be careful about saying that the Incarnation can be reasoned. We cannot properly reason from what we all know of human experience to the Incarnation, but we can show that it is reasonable.

MarcusRegulus August 13, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Perhaps. However, reasoning from God’s Purpose in creating the Universe, which, if we are not a mere plaything, must be the Perfection of the Universe, with humans created as His agents. Instructions to His agents must come from outside the Universe, in the form of robotizing humans, or inside the Universe, in the form of an (apparent) human being who demonstrates the Way. Therefore, the Incarnation. (Yes, yes, I know it is a messed-up logic, but I wanted to try it on for size anyway.)

God needs nothing. Thus, God did not need to create. That He created only means that our existence is tied to His Perfection. I think this is where this line of reasoning ends.

I do not see how reason brings us to the idea that humans are God’s “agents.”

Jerry Rhino August 13, 2014 at 3:07 pm

God does perfect things because He Is perfect. It is human to think in terms of God “needing” anything. He created mankind to share His love, and because it was the perfect thing to do with all that overflowing love He has. Perfection would not allow Him to keep it to Himself.

I am using “necessary” in the logical sense. Also, that God created man to share His love is revelation.

In the logical sense of the word, God did not need to create. From the Christian understanding of God as Triune, Father and Son are Lover and Beloved, and the Spirit is the Love that they share. Atleast, that is one expression. Even if God needed to create, nothing demands that His Creation be anything other than pure spirit persons to love. That this universe could have not existed–that its existence is unnecessary–is compatible with reason.

Jerry Rhino August 13, 2014 at 7:28 pm

Speaking of God needing, or not needing, is a personification error. And I can not get my head around God ever creating pure spirit persons to love. Pure spirit persons have nothing going for them, totally without merit. To what end would such beings belong?

A pencil needs matter in order to exist. Without matter, there are no pencils.

God made angels.

Jerry Rhino August 13, 2014 at 7:40 pm

Angels did not start as pure spirits for God’s eternal love. Angels started with a challenge, a test of their will. Only those who followed St Michael were granted God’s continual love. Those who followed Lucifer lost the ability to receive God’s love.

douglas kraeger August 14, 2014 at 5:00 pm

I do not understand that. I believe that God is eternally doing all He does and the “gift and the call” are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Therefore God is eternally giving all angels the gift of freewill and it is part of their nature so they cannot be without it. How does free will work? That is a mystery, something we can arrive at believing because of revelation or logic and reasoning, but still a mystery. According to CCC 314, for those who see God “face to face”, partial knowledge ceases, and therefore they must have been given truly infinite graces to see God as He IS and to know all things, yet they must still have freewill. So therefore free will is such that we can be given truly infinite graces and still have freewill. With our freewill we will still choose to conform our will to the Divine Will. A question: Is this all consistent with the teaching of the Church? Does it contradict Church teaching, or logic, anywhere?

Next step: God says we have free will. God gives us and the angels free will. God calls the free will He gives us by the same name that He calls what He gives the angels. The gift of free will is the same, (God calls it by the same name), but the same gift is given to different natures, both have the same (as in essence, not level or ability) capacity to choose. If our free will is such that God can give us truly infinite graces to see Him as He IS and for partial knowledge to cease, the free will of the angels cannot be different, He calls their gift by the same name. Therefore God could give all those who go to hell for ever and ever and ever and ever….., men and angels, God could give them truly infinite graces and their free wills would conform to His Divine Will and choose to be in hell for ever and ever and ever…. The whole purpose of Creation is for God to share His infinite nature with those He created and to share His love, peace, joy, thankfulness and sorrow for sin with all His Creatures. Anything less is not an infinitely good and powerful God.

Okay: have I gone wrong somewhere? Have I contradicted Church teachings or Scripture?

MarcusRegulus August 13, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Reason operates with assumptions, or axioms, and processes them. Is not the statement, “We can know the existence of God by reason,” also an assumption?
As you correctly note, I made several assumptions above. It is not to “prove” anything, but to provide an idea with which to be toyed.
Speculation is fun. (Always recalling it is right next to “peculation”.)
If we are not having fun, why are we bothering? 🙂

jrmbg August 13, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Typo in third sentence under First Reply, should be “incompatible” or at least have another qualifier like “but not Christianity.”

I agree with your statement in reply to Bob, but that’s not how your post reads. It says the idea that God is “the greatest force in the universe” or “the greatest being…is entirely compatible with theism.” I think you meant to say what you said in reply to Bob, which is that the idea that “such a being does not exist in the universe” is compatible with theism. But that’s not what the paragraph actually says.

I see where the confusion lies, and I will make a small edit in order for the meaning to be more easily discernable. Thanks.

jrmbg August 13, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Ah, now I see what you were going for. I thought “this view” meant “God exists in the universe” and you wrote it to mean “God-in-the-universe does not exist”. Too confusing.

Chris Markowski August 13, 2014 at 7:45 pm

It is apparent that your understanding of atheism and agnosticism has likely been conveyed to you only by other deists, or theists, coupled with your own biased conceptions. As an agnostic atheist, it would be best to tell you how we think, as opposed to hearing how we think from a theist or deist. I would imagine you should appreciate the depiction of how it is, hearing it from the “horses mouth” instead, which in theism, it is all too common not to understand atheism or agnosticism. To learn more about my position, feel free to view the following article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Your first sentence is blatantly wrong, atheists do not view god as the greatest force in the universe. Atheists do not believe in god, so they have no view of what god is. There is no “god”. There is no greatest force in the universe, aside from maybe the known supernova (more succinctly – hyper nova) explosions of dying stars, or perhaps the understanding of the big bang, in which the singularity erupts in explosion. However, none of these are god, or gods. There is existence, but that is not god. It is existence. Claiming we think existence is god, is nonsense.

While some “strong” atheists claim that god does not exist, I agree with you that this is unknowable, but by no means does it mean they believe in god. We all know this is unknowable, just as unicorns on a distant planet existing is unknowable. Nonetheless, it is theists that claim knowledge of “god” more times than not, forsaking that it is indeed a belief, not knowledge, This is when deist readers now may feel some discomfort in my words, surely you think you know and believe god exists, but that is rather irrational as well. You either believe, or know. If you claim knowledge, well, then you are the ones who know more knowledge of the universe than any “man” or woman possess. If atheists claim no god exists, this too is the case. As an agnostic atheist, I simply do not believe in god, yet I know that we cannot know for certainty. Essentially, all believers should wisely take this stance of agnostic theism as well, knowing their belief is a belief and not knowledge. Essentially as an agnostic atheist, and atheists would hold the same view, we have no reason to believe that god exists. There simply is no valid reason why we must expect the universe to be created Whether there is a claim that there is a god in another dimension or outside of this universe, there is no reason for us to believe it. I claim all other dimensions, as such the one where your god would be, to be all inclusive of existence. If your god exists, then existence exists. That’s all there is too it, and there is no reason to think that your god could exist on its own accord, without a creator, just as the universe to me, likely exists, on its own accord, without a creator.

Agnostics do not necessarily claim that nothing can be known of god, we claim that we know nothing of god. Any evidence that god exists, would be enough to revert this and claim knowledge of god, however we have no valid reason, no valid evidence, that god exists.

Essentially, you have everything wrong here, obviously there are atheists, there are agnostics, and that is the way the world is. Denying this and the reasons outlined above, would be nothing short of willful ignorance and denial of the reality of human nature.

First, in the latter half of your reply, you object to the definitions that I have used for ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic.’ I employed the academic/scholarly/historical definitions. I did not pull them out of thin air or pop-culture. [Not that you have done this, but…] It would be inappropriate and nonsensical to criticize my statements after substituting different definitions. It is clear what I meant by the terms I used, and what I have said is defensible as long as that fact is respected.

Now, my first concern with your remarks is that you claim to have “no view of what god is.” I am familiar with this objection. If I may, you have declared that you have a mind free of the concept of god. You lack a concept of what god is–atleast, that is what you are saying, correct?

Here’s the problem with that claim…

Chris, you made reference to a “unicorn.” Do you have a concept of what a “unicorn” is? Well, obviously, yes, you do. And, correct me if I’m assuming too much, but I bet that you, when prompted with the question, “Do you believe in unicorns?” would answer in the negative. A concept is nothing more than an idea, a mental picture. If you truly lack a concept of something, then you are actually incapable of affirming, denying, of expressing skepticism about the thing.

See, atheists must mean something when they say, “God does not exist.” The term “god” is a word-symbol for something. It isn’t a blank. It isn’t something totally new each time the word is before their eyes or in their ears. They must have a notion of “god,” else they could never assert his nonexistence or, as you did, uncertainty about his existence–“I simply do not believe in god.”

Chris Markowski August 14, 2014 at 12:02 am

Hi, thanks for the response. It seems you misunderstand my statement that I have no view of god. To understand this, in my sentence, it is based on the stipulation that I don’t believe in any god, or gods. Therefore I have no god, or a view of god. I do however, have a view of the concept of god. You seem to conflate the concept of god with a belief in god here, which seems to be causing your misunderstanding. Yes I understand various concepts of god and gods and have views on of these concepts of gods, but no view of a god that actually exists, to have a view on. I understand that is very unclear to any theist, I apologize for not clarifying precisely. So, simply because I am aware of say, your concept of god, being Christian obviously, I do have a view of what you deem as god, but to me, that is not god, it is only a concept, and it’s a concept that you believe is true. So it was just a semantical issue not relevant to the crux of the matter. Simply because I understand you or anyone else believes in god, and can conceptualizer and even empathize with it, does not mean I believe in god. Not that I think that’s what you mean, just to clarify.

I assure you, I am not conflating anything. I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I am having difficulty because of the lack of precision in your terminology. For example, “true” could mean “real or existent,” or it could mean “accurate.” I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your intended message.

Chris Markowski August 14, 2014 at 7:16 am

By view I mean “an opinion or way of thinking about something”

douglas kraeger August 14, 2014 at 5:53 am

I am a believer in God. By that statement I admit that there is no visible “proof” that can be examined in a microscope or disected. I believe their are some actions that are absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil. I believe that for there to be an absolute, objective, moral order or “law” there must be an all-powerful Creator that created all space and time and everything in it and also established and revealed said objective moral order. If there is no cause of creation, of that which exists, there could be no cause of an absolute, objective, moral order. I believe that If there is an absolute, objective, moral order, then there must be a God.
Do you claim that there are no absolute, objective, moral evil actions that anyone can imagine or do? Do you claim to believe that everything is relative and subject to personal opinion and there is no absolute, objective moral order and therefore no God?

Chris, I read the article concerning “The Inferior “Objective” Morality of Faith”. Interesting opinion. My questions still remain, waiting for direct answers. Yes, I could guess (maybe accurately) as to what your direct, non-evasive answers are, but, I do not see where my guessing is infallible most of the time , so there is a possibility I would get it wrong.

My two questions were: Do you claim (admit) that there are no absolute, objective, moral evil actions that anyone can imagine or do? Do you claim to believe that everything is relative and subject to personal opinion and there is no absolute, objective moral order and therefore no God? (Obviously I have added the word (admit) to my previous first question

My third question would be something like the following if you directly answer the two questions above directly with “yes”: As a specific, hypothetical, situation: Is it absolutely, objectively, morally evil for a President of the United States to deliberately start a world war in which He is as certain as possible that 3 billion people will probably die horrible deaths, but he starts the war because he is hopeful that he will be ruler of the whole world remaining after the fighting and dying are done? Now imagine yourself in front of a large audience and you are there to debate a believer. Would you still maintain that there nothing absolutely, objectively, morally evil about any possible actions? Thank you for your time.

Chris Markowski August 18, 2014 at 11:20 pm

Right, no absolute objective morality. Pure objectivity doesn’t even exist,the whole dichotomy ought to be thrown out. There are just varying degrees if subjectivity and objectivity as commonly used, is simply, a lesser degree of subjectivity. Everything is subject to knows as well as unknowns. However, simple because morality is subjective, doesn’t mean it is wrong, or incorrect , or not right or even unauthorative. Logic and reason leads to morality, based on our values, that is how we agree on what is right and wrong. So of course your scenario of the war starting is morally evil and simply because it is not some purely objective absolute claim, doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid claim, or right, or unauthoratative. There is no need for that standard as it becomes nonsense. Even a gods morality is subject to reason, logic, truth, not lying, and not having a period god above that god for one. Not even truth and knowledge is considered absolute and objective, including math, philosophically.

douglas kraeger August 20, 2014 at 5:57 am

Chris, when you say, “So of course your scenario of the war starting is morally evil and simply because it is not some purely objective absolute claim, doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid claim, or right, or unauthoratative. There is no need for that standard as it becomes nonsense” I think you lose any thinking people. Your reply was not as complete as could be and therefore the full truth of how it sounds is somewhat lost in the silence. A complete answer would be more along, ” So of course in your scenario of a President of the United States to deliberately start a world war in which He is as certain as possible that 3 billion people will probably die horrible deaths, but he starts the war because he is hopeful that he will be ruler of the whole world remaining after the fighting and dying are done, the war starting is morally evil just because I believe logic leads ME to that conclusion and simply because it is not some purely objective absolute claim, doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid claim, or right, or unauthoratative, I am authority enough for me and those who agree with me. There is no need for that standard as it becomes nonsense because my standard is what I go by and I really do not care what anyone else says.” What specifically have I said in my expanded response that is inconsistent with the essence of your original response? Please try to show me where my response is saying something that is not implicit (but not explicitly stated) in your response.

I agree, your opinion is a valid claim. I might claim that the 1969 New York Mets were the best football team of all time and that would be a valid claim, I can believe it even if it is not true. And your claim is not unauthoritative, it has all the authority of you and your opinion and is not binding on anyone else, but it has your authority. Chris, Do you believe your claim should be held as authoritative as “some purely objective absolute claim” that God affirms with logic and reasoning? Your claim is that logic and reasoning show us true morality, and I agree, but only because God is perfectly consistent and reveals Himself to those who perseveringly seek truth.
I think you know that almost all people would not agree with you if you told them, “A president deliberately starting a world war in which He is as certain as possible that 3 billion people will probably die horrible deaths, but he starts the war because he is hopeful that he will be ruler of the whole world remaining after the fighting and dying are done, is morally evil in my opinion but other people may disagree with me and their opinions are as valid as mine because there is no absolute objective moral order by which to judge that such an act by a president is absolutely , objectively, morally evil because I say there is no God.” What have I put in between your lines of your reply that is not consistent with your response to my question? Is my expanded response in harmony with the essence of your reply?
This hypothetical question could have been centered on “ISIS members beheading babies and raping little old ladies in the name of their god”, would you say the same thing then, “ISIS members beheading babies and raping little old ladies is morally wrong and evil in my opinion, but that is only my opinion and others might not agree with me and their opinion is just as valid as mine because there is no absolute, objective, moral order (because there is no God) by which to judge anything as absolutely, objectively, morally evil”? Please do not take offense, please, if you believe I have misunderstood your position, please try to show me where I made the mistake. Thank you

Chris Markowski August 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm

Well – I disagree that I lose thinking people (per your claim). I understand I may lose biased people who believe in god, gods or God, but not all. My stance is not solely that of my own, there are many valid philosophers who share the sentiment I have provided, who think, think some more, then ponder again the implications of subjective morality.

On your quote here: “…the war starting is morally evil just because I believe logic leads ME to that conclusion and simply because it is not some purely objective absolute claim, doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid claim, or right, or unauthoratative, I am authority enough for me and those who agree with me.”

-This sentiment is not accurately mine. I don’t believe logic leads me to the conclusion, I know logic leads me to the conclusion. The logic of my values lead me to the conclusion. As someone who values human life, or life itself, it is logically necessary to condemn a war as you outlined above, as evil and wrong. The authority is reason and logic, based on these inherent values. Additionally, this is how all morality is played out, unless it was directed to you, then it is not morality. You are not making a judgment, someone else is. You’re simply obeying, not judging. If you judge it to be wrong – and agree, then you are not obeying. If you judge it to be right – and disagree, then you are acting immorally on your own standard and mine as well.

We have to remember what morality is, morality is a judgment of right and wrong, good and evil. We all take part of this, on our own cognizance.

Quoting you again: “Do you believe your claim should be held as authoritative as “some purely objective absolute claim” that God affirms with logic and reasoning? Your claim is that logic and reasoning show us true morality, and I agree, but only because God is perfectly consistent and reveals Himself to those who perseveringly seek truth.”

-My claim is as authoritative as as any other claim. Simply saying “God” told me I was right, may provide people with the illusion that it is objective, but there’s no reason to believe that, and ultimately it is simply a way to convince people as to your authority. “God”, gods or “god”, however, has been anything but perfectly consistent, as pointed out in my other post which primarily discusses Christianity. The O.T. is antithetical in nature of morality, and you can see that difference in Judaism who rests solely on the O.T. and Christianity, who rest mostly on the N.T., yet cherry picks the morality each sect or person wishes to pick from the O.T., whether it contradicts N.T. morality or not. Other religions have the same dilemma, of contradictions, inept evolving morality and claims. Simply again, evidence that it is not an objective morality, but just another man made morality.

If “God” were to exist and he mandated clearly what was right and wrong, with omniscience and backing, then certainly that would be the only objective absolute morality possible. Unfortunately, nothing like that has ever been produced, as outlined in my other blog post. Your morality, the morality of every faith, sect and person who believes in “God” gods, or “god, all have been unable to portray an objective coherent morality. Anything close, is a creation all of their own, not of the scripture presented, or “god’s word” that is provided to them to believe in the “God, gods or god” that they believe in to begin with.

Now with saying something like “Homosexuals are evil” because “God says so” would mean you think homosexuality is evil, although I see no valid reason to understand this, other than assumptions. The bible doesn’t explain why, it just says it is so. Same as women talking in church. Apparently “God’s word” proclaims that it is wrong for women to talk in church, and if that is objective, I would argue that, until I find a valid reason. There simply is no reason provided, it is all very dubious claims. It is assumed it is objective, if you believe in God.
The same as ISIS killing infidels, assuming it is objectively good for them to do so, by their “God’s” command. Which ultimately, are nothing but writings of men, as stated previously, pawning off their incoherent and by my judgement of reason, logic and value, evil morality – as “God’s. “

douglas kraeger August 22, 2014 at 5:52 am

Chris, I stated and asked, “I think you know that almost all people would not agree with you if you told them, “A president deliberately starting a world war in which He is as certain as possible that 3 billion people will probably die horrible deaths, but he starts the war because he is hopeful that he will be ruler of the whole world remaining after the fighting and dying are done, is morally evil in my opinion but other people may disagree with me and their opinions are as valid as mine because there is no absolute objective moral order by which to judge that such an act by a president is absolutely , objectively, morally evil because I say there is no God.” What have I put in between your lines of your reply that is not consistent with your response to my question? Is my expanded response in harmony with the essence of your reply?

Your response started with “Well – I disagree that I lose thinking people (per your claim). I understand I may lose biased people who believe in god, gods or God, but not all.” You say that you do not agree that I lose thinking people, But does that statement technically and specifically address my claim that “I think you know”? If you had said, ” You are wrong in your claim that “I know that almost all people would not agree with you if you told them, “A president….” “. I do not know that and “I disagree that I lose thinking people (per your claim). I understand I may lose biased people who believe in god, gods or God, but not all.”

Second point: Did you mean to imply that all people who are biased (believe in God, gods) are not thinking people? I think your response could be construed to imply that. Do you want to clarify that?

Also, you said,” The authority is reason and logic, based on these inherent values. Additionally, this is how all morality is played out, unless it was directed to you, then it is not morality. You are not making a judgment, someone else is. You’re simply obeying, not judging. If you judge it to be wrong – and agree, then you are not obeying. If you judge it to be right – and disagree, then you are acting immorally on your own standard and mine as well.” Could you restate this in another way? I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying? Thank you

As an agnostic atheist,- as logical as non- believing believer.
Atheists do not believe in god, so they have no view of what god is. There is no “god”. There is no great. If you don’t know what god is, you cannot question his existence. What an illogical post.

If you have no concept for the word-symbol comprised, in English, of the three letters G, O, D, “god,” then how are you using it in a sentence?

“Atheists do not believe in unicorns, so they have no view of what a unicorn is.” Now that just sounds silly, doesn’t it?

Chris Markowski August 14, 2014 at 9:07 am

Simply because you know of the concept of unicorns, leprchauns, Santa Clause, Zeus, Shiva, or any other concept, does not mean you believe they exist. Obviously the concept exists, not the entity the concept describes.

You are essentially, using a red herring fallacy to make your case.
The Red herring being, we know of a concept of god or gods, but that does not mean we believe they exist.

Shaun McAfee August 14, 2014 at 9:23 am

Chris, first of all, that’s not a proper Red Herring. A red herring is a major set of severl sorts of minor logical fallacies. That is, you have to tell us which type of red herring he used and why; which you didnt do.

Second, your logical fallacy is an agument from fallacy itself. That is, you cannot say that or assume that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false. It does not follow that if you do not believe in something that it simply does not not exist.

Lastly, Chris, your saying you’re an agnostic, reducing your comments and arguments to those identical of Dawkins Delision but the New Atheism movement and popular atheim doesn’t believe in metaphysics, which is primarily made up of the laws of logic. That is, your team doesn’t believe in what you are using to argue against theists.

Chris Markowski August 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm

I never said because the argument is false that the conclusion is false. I am saying it is false on my own accord, yet the argument is false here also. I also have no obligation to tell you what type of red herring he used and why, but I can offer it, if you would ask how. The red herring I am referring to was a straw-man./ Definist fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy). Simply because we know a concept of god or gods, but that does not mean we believe they exist. (as possibly but not precisely alluded to in reply 1 of the OP). While that is not clearly stated, it seems to be heavily implied. I am not making a certain claim on the definist fallacy, but wihtout it, it makes no sense to say anything that was said at all in reply 1 of the OP.

David’s reply to “Sumer” is a strawman as well. Essentially, you will have to define your god in order us to explain our view of that god and why we don’t believe in that god, in order to not attempt to have an atheist fall into the trapping of the possibly being alluded to red herring of admitting god exists, because we have a concept of that god. Which if this isn’t what is being alluded to, pretty much defeats the purpose of saying anything at all in reply one and claiming that atheists don’t exist.

My comments are my own, any similarity to Dawkins,or new atheism is coincidental, yet irrelevant regardless. You are generalizing atheism and popular atheism into atheism as a whole, which isn’t correct either. You build off this fallacious generalization yourself with a strawman argument by saying atheists don’t believe in metaphysics, that is not true, atheists don’t believe in god, nothing more nothing less.

You are right, having the concept a thing does not imply belief in the existence of that thing. I did not suggest otherwise.

Return to what I wrote. I did not say that atheists believe ‘god’ is the greatest force in the universe. I said that the concept of ‘god’ is defined by atheists as ‘the greatest force in the universe.’

All I have done at this point is identify the atheist’s conception of ‘god.’ This is identical in meaning to my sentence: “Most such people conceive of ‘God’ as the greatest force in the universe.” Your criticism would be valid if I had instead written, “Most such people believe “God” is the greatest force in the universe,” but I didn’t.

Additionally, I wrote, “Atheists assert that God does not exist.” There is no red herring. There is no straw man.

Chris Markowski August 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm

The dilemma is that you are referring to a specific god, likely. Unicorns are specific. There are many concepts of god and gods, some of which are contradictory and some of which are not similar at all, from Zeus, to Allah, Jesus, Thor, etc, we cannot, as non believers, have a view of “god”, we can only have a view of what god is others, or the concept of god itself. That should clarify.